Eset NOD 32v4 or Microsoft Security Essentials

[Mulaka]

Which do you think is better after running the MSE for a bit? My PC and Laptop both always have Eset NOD 32 on them, but when the leak came out I switched to give it a go. It appears it uses a tad more resources, but I was okay with that.

Then, my laptop got compromised. C: drive would say I didn't have the administrative rights to acces it. When I would go into the properties to check permissions everything sadi it didn't know who the owner was etc. MSE reported that it had real-time protection off! When I tried to scan the HD, MSE reported that it didn't exist!

I have not had a virus or malware in over 7 years. Is MSE limited? Does it have a password set like NOD which controls making changes? Really weird. Kind of sucks because I like it.

 

[sup3rsprt]

Nod32 has been around for a long time. No doubt it's better than anything Microsoft has to offer.

On a side note, we don't want everyone using this antivirus product made by Microsoft (as if that would ever happen). If everyone used the same antivirus product, everyone would have the same virus signatures and likely would also get infected by the same virus.

 

[ciphernemo]

ESET NOD32, hands down, no contest.

I use only NOD32 and have it's Vista 64-bit version working great on Windows RC-1. It detected and removed viruses just fine when I was scanning a co-worker's drive via USB to remove viruses for them (I do PC work on the side apart from my full time job as a software engineer).

You don't need the suite from ESET, just the basic NOD32 package, a browser less prone to attacks like Firefox or Opera, and some good browser add-ons for whitelisting sites to allow JavaScript.

The "detection in the wild" and scanning throughput of NOD32 beats all others, no exceptions. It also has the smallest footprint of any of the big name Anti-virus packages out there.

 

[Mulaka]

Yeah, I put NOD back on. It has served me well all these years. I wanted to give MSE a shot and I got burned. Oh well. I guess for a free AV. MSE might be okay, but for performance and peace of mind I'm sticking with Eset.

 

[ciphernemo]

Oh well. I guess for a free AV. MSE might be okay, but for performance and peace of mind I'm sticking with Eset.

NOD32 will not let you down. Only use free anti-virus apps for Windows if you simply don't want to pay for AV.

 

[Snufffed]

strictly morro & MS Firewall

Decided to take the plunge. Totally removed ESET Smart Security.
Running Windows 7 Firewall, Default setting.
Installed MORRO (MSE).

Prior to removing ESET I went to MR Testit site. which proudly BOOST He can fool any AV, AM and infect if he wanted to... WOOPS, Morro detected, cleaned and allowed entrance.
So far so good for Morro.

 

[pestbest]

Yeah, I put NOD back on. It has served me well all these years. I wanted to give MSE a shot and I got burned. Oh well. I guess for a free AV. MSE might be okay, but for performance and peace of mind I'm sticking with Eset.

Do you seriously mean you got burned? So far MSE has done a really good job for me. It already cleaned up around 9 infections in my computer. Well I think I'm going to try ESET Nod32 today. I've never used ESET before so let's hope it gives me a good impression. I probably expect that since everyone is talking about it being so excellent.

 

[swarfega]

As I said in the other similar thread on this subject, I have a subscription to Nod32 Smart Security but I decided to trial MSE for a while and see how it fairs.

 

[zigzag3143]

Which do you think is better after running the MSE for a bit? My PC and Laptop both always have Eset NOD 32 on them, but when the leak came out I switched to give it a go. It appears it uses a tad more resources, but I was okay with that.

Then, my laptop got compromised. C: drive would say I didn't have the administrative rights to acces it. When I would go into the properties to check permissions everything sadi it didn't know who the owner was etc. MSE reported that it had real-time protection off! When I tried to scan the HD, MSE reported that it didn't exist!

I have not had a virus or malware in over 7 years. Is MSE limited? Does it have a password set like NOD which controls making changes? Really weird. Kind of sucks because I like it.

ESET smart security. is nod32 with a firewall. Morro just updated and found its own virus defs as virus. I wouldn't trust it
\Ken

 

[Snufffed]

ESET SS via Win7 FW and Morro

I have been fathful to ESET Smart Security (4.0.437) for a long time. To be honest, I decided to give Windows 7 Firewall and Morro AV a test. At this time i'm on 7260, using only Win7 Firewall and Morro AV. Updates are working great, I have also visited 2 sites which calim to have FOOLed every AV going. Morro was the only AV which passed both sites. (Yes, ESET failed on one site.) Morro found, deleted and rec'd a passing grade on BOTH SITES.
Now I do have Dual Boot, 1 is pure MS and the 2nd is ESET 437, so to test only takes about 4 min. reboot avg is 2m40s, and then click to site and see. My rating for MORRO at this time is excellent. Time will tell.

 

[TheIgster]

I tried ESET recently, and while it seemed just fine and is well reviewed, it's not free. I like free. I pay enough for things, why should I pay for ESET when I can use MSE for free and it seems to be doing a fine job?

 

[tw33k]

ESET NOD32, hands down, no contest.

I use only NOD32 and have it's Vista 64-bit version working great on Windows RC-1. It detected and removed viruses just fine when I was scanning a co-worker's drive via USB to remove viruses for them (I do PC work on the side apart from my full time job as a software engineer).

You don't need the suite from ESET, just the basic NOD32 package, a browser less prone to attacks like Firefox or Opera, and some good browser add-ons for whitelisting sites to allow JavaScript.

The "detection in the wild" and scanning throughput of NOD32 beats all others, no exceptions. It also has the smallest footprint of any of the big name Anti-virus packages out there.

excellent post! i agree 100%. i would not even consider another product, especially one by m$, to protect my system.

 

[Charles Kane]

I think that there is currently no definitive answer to the question. MSE is, at least partially, an unknown quantity. It is already getting good reviews from authoritative sources - such as:

AV-Test GmbH tested Microsoft Security Essentials, the free software Microsoft launched yesterday in beta, on Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7, putting it up against nearly 3,200 common viruses, bot Trojans and worms, said Andreas Marx, one of the firm's two managers. The malware was culled from the most recent WildList, a list of threats actually actively attacking computers.
"All files were properly detected and treated by the product," said Marx in an e-mail. "That's good, as several other [antivirus] scanners are still not able to detect and kill all of these critters yet."
AV-Test also measured Security Essentials against a set of in-house false positives to see whether the software mistakenly fingers legitimate files, a nightmare for users, who can be left with a crippled computer, and a disaster to the reputation of a security company.
"None of the clean files were flagged as being malicious," noted Marx. "Very good."

​

(quoted from Computerworld)

Also in its favour is that it runs flawlessly in 7 (and I'd say has a good simple GUI too)

Eset is well established and gets reasonable results from authoritative sources. Not the very best but pretty good. An example is the above reported AV-Test GmbH. This chart should give everyone with their favorites hours of fun - 34 AVs Compared.

Eset has IMO an excellent GUI and runs "quietly".

So both are good solid alternatives.

I know many will scream blue murder but I run them both! Neither complains about the other, neither or even both use much in the way of resources. Still I can't be sure this is a good idea.



What I have learnt re AV and Win7 is this:

• Not all AV solutions work in 7
• Some AV solutions work flawlessly (Eset, MSE, Avast and, I think Avira)(there are probably others)
• Most AV solutions are pretty good at what they do and none are perfect.
• A few AV solutions are below par and there are better options.
• We should all worry LESS about this "problem"

 

[Dinesh]

There is no comparison between Eset and MSE. If you want to go for free AV, MSE is excellent. If you wont mind paying for better security, NOD32 is solid protection.

 

[ciphernemo]

Charles, thanks for the informative post. Some good thoughts and resources there.

(picture of idle resources)

As for the idle resources, Microsoft products will always have less because they have access to closed-source Microsoft libraries and other executables already present in Windows, while third parties use their own code and sometimes anything where Microsoft releases an API for it.

The same is true with IE. Since a good portion of IE is built into Windows, IE takes up less memory than programs like Firefox and Opera.

So that resources comparison of a Microsoft and non-Microsoft product isn't a fair fight. To make things even less fair, Microsoft may be using .NET for most of their applications now, and they can tweak the .NET to include only what's needed for each application (since they have access to its closed- source when no one else does). Other third parties that use .NET have to include the whole library, which takes 20MB at least for .NET 2.0+. Instead, compare non-Microsoft to non-Microsoft for resource usage.

But there are other factors too. Memory leaks and memory usage fluctuation when doing scans, updates, etc. play a big role. But I'd still say any Microsoft application will use less memory.

 

[ciphernemo]

The biggest problem right now is that Microsoft has its Morro out in Beta, and I wouldn't use a Beta version of anything if you want solid virus protection.

Later this year when Morro is out of beta, it might be a very good choice.

 

[oidicle]

Charles, about your screenshot: If you really wanna compare memory usage, don't compare with "egui.exe" but with "ekrn.exe", then you'll see that ekrn.use quite a lot of memory, which is the only thing I don't like about Eset Smart Security but have come to terms with.... I still prefer it as an AV solution, I really like to know what goes in and out of my PC by using the "Interactive Filtering" feature on the firewall option, they're even some microsoft services and files that I don't even allow to connect to the internet... I'm not saying that Eset is the only AV that does this, but there are a few that don't, so if any installed program wants to connect to the internet or "self-update" or any remote PC wants to connect to mine than they're simply allowed, just like that, c'mon...

 

[SoLoR]

I did trade nod for mse and all in one mse seems solid enough, like IE is good enough. I am trying to use most of MS programs tho, for compatibility reasons... i mean is MS programs cant work together, then what will!?

 

[ciphernemo]

...like IE is good enough. I am trying to use most of MS programs tho, for compatibility reasons... i mean is MS programs cant work together, then what will!?

Oh my goodness. You didn't just say "IE is good enough", did you? LOL!

Oh the poor masses out there who've never experienced the flexibility and awesomeness that is Firefox. *shakes head*

Quirks mode - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And from Wikipedia about IE security:

Internet Explorer has been subjected to many security vulnerabilities and concerns: Much of the spyware, adware, and computer viruses across the Internet are made possible by exploitable bugs and flaws in the security architecture of Internet Explorer, sometimes requiring nothing more than viewing of a malicious web page in order to install themselves. This is known as a "drive-by install". There are also attempts to trick the user into installing malicious software by misrepresenting the software's true purpose in the description section of an ActiveX security alert.
A number of security flaws affecting IE originated not in the browser itself, but ActiveX-based add-ons used by it. Because the add-ons have the same privilege as IE, the flaws can be as critical as browser flaws. This has led to the ActiveX-based architecture being criticized for being fault-prone. More recently, other experts have maintained that the dangers of ActiveX have been overstated and there are safeguards in place. Other browsers that use NPAPI as their extensibility mechanism are suffering the same problems. In an April 2005 eWeek opinions column, Larry Seltzer stated:

While there has been a striking lack of actual evidence that ActiveX is unsafe, there has been no shortage of baseless assertions and cheap shots against it. My favorite was the "Internet Exploder" incident in which Sun actually paid someone to write a malicious ActiveX control. The test system brought up all the warning dialogs about the program that you usually get and the Sun employee actually had the nerve to keep whacking on the enter key quickly so they would close as quickly as possible and didn't mention that there were any such warnings. Meanwhile, they also didn't mention that a signed Java applet could also perform dangerous privileged operations and would provide similar warnings. Most ActiveX criticism is simply uninformed, but this example was hypocritical and dishonest.[47]
​

While Internet Explorer in 2008 had a comparable number of security vulnerabilities to Safari and Opera, and significantly fewer than its primary competitor, Mozilla Firefox[citation needed], its comparative ubiquity has resulted in many more affected computers when vulnerabilities are found. According to research done by security research firm Secunia, Microsoft has not responded as quickly as competitors in fixing security holes and making patches available.[48] The firm also reported 366 vulnerabilities in ActiveX controls, an increase from the prior year.

 

[Mercurial]

we should have eset group here in the forum ;D


Eset FTW!


though MSE is still a young software yet its doing really good... but I won't switch just yet... lets see how it will do in the long run ;D eset has been here since the 90's

thought if it will be proven that MSE will have better Detection rates than kapersky (which has the best detection rate) I'll switch to it LOL!.

from what I see MSE is decent and already beats free products